Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donnie Wahlberg and Maryse Selit.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jerry Stiller and Maryse Selit.jpg.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mehmet Oz with Maryse Selit.jpg.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Stossel and Maryse Selit.jpg.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donnie Wahlberg and Maryse Selit.jpg.

File:Donnie Wahlberg and Maryse Selit.jpg

Unused, out of scope. Maryse Selit selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts 67.230.140.124 19:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The delete nomination by this Anonymous User is vandalism and appears motivated by some personal agenda against Dr. Selit. A review of the User's IP address indicates their contributions to Wiki started on Nov 8th, when he/she nominated Dr. Selit' wiki article for deletion. From that point forward, this User has made daily delete contributions, all of which (except for one other, presumably to give the appearance of legitimacy) are targeted at this particular subject. Also, this User's stated purpose for deletion, that they are all "selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts", is false and defamatory to the subject. For example, these pics were taken by me and uploaded as such. However, this User claims they are "selfies" that have been "perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts". All false statements of fact that are provable as such. None of the pics I contributed were ever nominated for deletion by any one other than this Anon. User. Also, upon researching the pics contributed by other Wiki users, none of those were either. All deletion requests were made by this User starting Nov 8th. This User's ill-motivated behavior clearly violates Wikipedia's purpose, policies and rules and he/she should be blocked. Thanks. Lmatt123 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celeblawyersnyc for starters; your comments do not address the reason for deletion. 67.230.140.124 17:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Delete As one involved in the last deletion request for these same pictures, I'd point out that

• (a) Wikipedia is not a personal photo album.
• (b) We must protect personal privacy rights. For each of the four images up for deletion, what is pictured is a notable male with one or more non-notable females. The images of the female/s in this and the other three photos up for deletion now are of a presumably living subject/s.
• (c)Wikipedia commons requires that the rights to the images must be absolute. In this case, ownership is disputed by the various uploaders; The author "Lmatt123" claims authorship, "Celeblawyersnyc" made the same claim previously. Not one of the four images contains any informative metadata.
• (d) Poor and low quality reduce the usefulness of many images to the project, including these which are of consistently blurry and poor quality

I will address specific points about each of the four under its own image heading.

File:Donnie Wahlberg and Maryse Selit.jpg is also very blurry, and while it is larger, it's not educational or within wiki scope. We have other photos in focus of the notable male subject. This document's Metadata shows only that it is a *jpg file, there is no camera data. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jerry Stiller and Maryse Selit.jpg for additional comments. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ellin BeltzYour statement that these are "selfies" which have been "perpetually deleted and re-uploaded" are false and defamatory. Surely, a Wiki editor must know that a "selfie" is a pic taken by a person of themselves. Moreover, you also stated that "Wikipedia is not a personal photo album". By these comments, you are stating in no uncertain terms that Dr. Selit took these pics of herself (have you even looked at the pics?? How in the world could Dr. Selit have accomplished this task???) You also state that they were "deleted and reuploaded perpetually" (i.e. over and over again) when in fact they were NEVER deleted before your request on Nov. 10th and Nov. 19th! As noted when I uploaded the pics, they were taken by me personally. There are numerous pics of Dr. Selit on the web taken by Patrick McMullan and other photographers that have not been uploaded on here. For eg., the pics from last Sunday's Stage and Film Society Ball at the Plaza Hotel of Selit with Steve Buscemi, Stanley Tucci, Peter Gallagher, Juliana Margolies and others.

Moreover, the Anon. editor's IP address under which they submitted my pics for deletion as well as Celeblawyers plus Selit's Wiki article, was researched and confirmed as belonging to you. So despite your claims that there are two editors who nominated Selit for deletion, both deletion requests on Nov. 10th and Nov. 19th were made by just you. I do not know or care why Celeblawyers did not respond to your nomination but, upon reviewing your history of contributions, almost all of which involve Dr. Selit (and clearly shows a conflict of interest based on Wiki rules), none of the pics uploaded by that user were the same as those I uploaded. As for the quality of my images, they have been shared without issue (eg, the Jerry Stiller and Dr. Selit pic was used by the article on Central Park). Interestingly, I can point to more than half the works on here that do not have meta data and are of poorer quality than my images. This is certainly not grounds for deleting the images and I am happy to provide enhanced versions of the images if need be. Lmatt123 (talk) 3:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

LOLLLL, Celeblawyer's pics were nominated for deletion by Ubcule (talk · contribs); your other accusations are fanciful at best, and not relevant to whether the photos should be deleted. It's moot whether they are "selfies" or simply portraits of a non-notable person. 67.230.140.124 22:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Keep -- we only have EIGHT photos of d. wahlberg, no need or reason to reduce it to 7. also, the anonymous-ip nominator is a deletionist suspected SOCKPUPPET on a spree, & apparently has an agenda of removing every single image of the other person in the photo. therefore, not exactly an objective judge. Lx 121 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Lmatt, I find your arguments confused. I didn't nominate these pictures for deletion. I have no history of contributions regarding Dr. Selit other than comments on deletion requests, so there is no possible conflict of interest. I am not the anonymous editor who did nominate these pictures this time, thus your claim of searching the IP address to me is also most confusing. I am also not the original nominator of the photos. I am certain the that the overworked image deletion editors would be happy for your help nominating pictures for deletion that you feel are out of COM:SCOPE by nature of their irrelevance to the project's goals, lack of quality or being "borrowed" from others.

Lx 121, I don't see that here. I see the same images being uploaded over and over of a non-notable female with a series of notable males. The images are not of good quality and they have been through other deletion discussions. I am not a sock puppet, I am not the anonymous editor who has made the deletion nominations. I don't really think that reducing 8 photos to 7 is a problem. It's not the number of images that counts, it is that the project has better ones than these which are of dubious origin having been uploaded by multiple accounts all of whom claim ownership. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• this is a c&p of the SAME response, to the SAME reply posted on all of the DRs.

i. "they have been through other deletion discussion -- & yet they are still here. so why are we wasting time doing this all over again?

ii. "I don't really think that reducing 5 photos to 4 is a problem." -- well, I DO. commons is a media repository, it is our JOB to provide a range of material to choose from.

iii. "There are many biographies on the project that have no image at all." -- a) commons is NOT wikipedia, so this observation is not directly relevant. & b) i'm, not clear what your point is? are you saying that you would support removing the ONLY photo from a bio, or that you don't feel that providing photos for biographies is important, or...?

iv. "these which are of dubious origin" -- i REALLY don't think that you have a case for "dubious authorship" here; it's pretty clear what the source is. so that's a null-value arguement.

v. "I have no history of contributions regarding Dr. Selit other than comments on deletion requests, so there is no possible conflict of interest." -- actually that does nothing to prove a "lack" of conflict of interest. you seem to be interested enough to lurk DR's about her photos. this is a side point, but i'm just pointing out that your agruement is again an invalid one.

vi. when i see a single-purpose anonymous-ip editor, pursuing a clear & definite agenda (deletionist or not), as is the case here, then i think "SOCK-PUPPET" is a reasonavle suspicion, as per wp:duck. i have no idea whether it's you, or not, but i think it is pretty likely that it's SOMEONE who knows their way around the project(s).

that said, i'm not ruling out the possibility of sock-puppet violations on BOTH sides here. but the authorship/rights to the photos really aren't in doubt. & perhaps we should investigate BOTH ways?

Lx 121 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

More hilarious and ill-founded attacks? Sheesh. I would welcome a sock investigation just to put the matter to rest; too bad there is no evidence! I'm still waiting for any of the keep voters to address the reasoning for the deletion: usused, out of scope. 67.230.140.124 02:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• comment: by the way, for a "random" anonymous-ip person, you really do show a REMARKABLE understanding of how things work on commons. what else is one to conclude, other than that you have spent rather more time here, than your user-history seems to indicate... [1] Lx 121 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• AND you turned up on wp/en around the same time, doing the same thing, with the same "freakish" knowledge of how things work on that wiki; INCLUDING citing obscure wp essays, in your edit comments. [2].

NO WAY are you a "noob". Lx 121 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• & here you go, you wish is granted:

1. "unused" is NOT a rationale for deletion. "in-use" is a rationale to prevent deletion, unless a file has copyvio, or other serious problems.

2. the file IS NOT "out of scope". it fits into a number of subject-categories, among them, category:Donnie Wahlberg, which contains only 8 photographs, of which only6 are unique images, including this file.

that being the case, "scope" dictates that we KEEP the file, at least until we can improve the range of d. wahlberg photos we have on file.

Lx 121 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete poor quality image of Mr wahlberg, with an unknown person, and no file info to indicate what this is, or metadata to help show the uploader was the photographer. we dont know if the unknown woman is ok with this image, and the image of mr wahlberg is of no use as long as we have better images.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

the "genesis" of this collection of images involved the creation of a promotional wp/en article for ms. selit. the article was properly removed but, given that, we can reasonably assume that the photos were "authorized".

as for the quality, if you will take a careful look @ his category (8 images in total, but only 6 unique images; the other 2 being dervied works), you will find that this image falls into the same range as most of the others on file. commons' mission is to be a MEDIA REPOSITORY; that means offering a RANGE of materials, for people to use elsewhere, not just collecting "one-of-everything".

when we have a better range of pics of this person, THEN it might be appropriate to re-consider this one. right now, since we only have the 6 views (including this one), a careful reading of scope would suggest keep, rather than delete.

respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I offer the same comments I did on the other DRs:

There have been sockpuppet accusations on both sides here, so I did the necessary investigation and can say:

1) Lmatt123 is being disingenuous in saying

"I do not know or care why Celeblawyers did not respond to your nomination..." (it's actually Celeblawyersnyc)

because Celeblawyersnyc is his or her sockpuppet. It appears likely that Lmatt123 and Celeblawyersnyc are not the same person, but work at the same large organization with central IT. (.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

2) 67.230.140.124, the nom here, is not Ellin Beltz. The IP does not show any related Commons user accounts. If there is anything false and defamatory above, it is the accusation of Ellin.

let's see the results, pls? Lx 121 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Delete As for the merits of the DR, I see no reason to keep a poor quality image that includes a non-notable person whose images have been repeatedly uploaded and deleted as out of scope. The fact that Lmatt123 has used a sockpuppet as part of this extended campaign only adds to the reason to delete. If Ms. Selit wants to post images of herself on Facebook, that is what Facebook is for. Commons is for educational purposes and we don't need a blurred image of Donnie Wahberg embracing a non-notable person. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• comment -- we have EIGHT photographs of mr. wahlberg. one of those is a duplicate @ different resolution, so that means we really have 7. one of them is cropped from another, so that's now 6. none of them is especially brilliant, & all but 2 of them are of comparable resolution to the one under discussion here.

AND it's easily within the top 4 pics in the category for showing a clear view of wahlberg's face.

AND it's the only one where he is smiling...

the whole point of commons is to provide a SELECTION of free media files. not just "one of each". UNTIL/UNLESS we can increase the number of photos we have on file of this person, it behoves us to keep the few that we have (as per scope).

and there is no point on harping that it's "a fan pic", or that the other person in the photo is "non-notable" (which, btw is a WIKIPEDIA policy; not entirely relevant to commons...). yes, it's not the best-quality photo, but it's still entirely useable.

for example, a wiki-quotes piece about wahlberg might use all of the pics we have on file, depending on the length/number-of-quotes. an article about fandom, celebrity meet & greets, something about nkotb then & now, eighties/nineties teen idols, or etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Lmatt123's claims about supposedly having identified Ellin Beltz's IP as the anonymous user behind the CelebLawyersNYC images nomination are particularly silly, since- as was pointed out- the history shows that I (Ubcule) was the one who nominated it, i.e. *not* "67.230.140.124", whoever they are! (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• ummm, NO, the history of THIS DR quite clearly shows that it was started by the anonymous-ip-person [3] Lx 121 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please pay attention. I quite clearly referred to "the CelebLawyersNYC images nomination" (which I did start), not this one (which I obviously didn't). This was a response to Lmatt123's claim that "Moreover, the Anon. editor's IP address under which they submitted my pics for deletion as well as Celeblawyers plus Selit's Wiki article, was researched and confirmed as belonging to [Ellin Beltz]"- which was, of course, risible, since it's quite clear that I- and not that anon IP user- nominated CelebLawersNYC's upload. Ubcule (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the image, my problem is as much the ambiguity surrounding it, since we're supposed to err on the side of caution where the origins and/or rights aren't sufficiently clear. Ubcule (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

as for the image, it seems pretty clear from the above (including the sockpuppet investigation), that the source is the same, is connected with ms. selit, & by all reasonable probability has the rights to the photographs. Lx 121 (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no "reasonable probability" in COM:PRP. These images have been uploaded several times by several different users and deleted at least twice before after deletion nominations, one of which was by Ubcule, the latest one by the anonymous editor who is not me. These images were once attached to a Wikipedia page about Ms. Selit which was also deleted for lack of notability. The history of the repeatedly reappearing images is cogent to the current deletion discussion on which I still vote delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

actually, yes, there IS; prp is not a license to erase anything unless it can be proven to the nth degree: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted."

in this case we had a (self-)promotional article @ wp/en, we have what are obviously personal (i.e.: non-professional) snapshot photographs which were uploaded for the article, BY the person who created said article.

that being the case, it is REASONABLE to assume that the uploader had the necessary authorization to upload & license said photographs.

ironically, "significant doubt" @ wmc is eliminated for the same reason that the article was deleted @ wp/en.

Lx 121 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT -- & now our highly experienced anonymous-IP editor is also a chameleon [4] same person, different numbers...

Lx 121 (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's far more likely the result of a dynamic IP address change, as happens regularly with many domestic connections. It's quite obviously from the same range, i.e. not very convincing as an alleged attempt to hide the user's identity. Since in most cases, the ISP allocates the address (not the user), it wouldn't even be possible to get the same one twice in a row anyway without luck and/or repeated reconnection attempts.

As there's no clear attempt to present themselves as a different user, or leverage this situation, I'd suggest you're being overly suspicious. Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• comment -- & you REALLY think that this person turned up ONE MONTH AGO, with a magical knowledge of how things work on wp/en AND commons? noob users DO NOT use wiki-jargon, they DO NOT refer to obscure wp:essays in their edit comments, they DO NOT demonstrate intimate knowledge of policies, etc.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.230.140.124

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=67.230.140.124&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2013&month=-1

as regards the ip-change; major or minor, it STILL makes this user's total activity record untraceable, AND i'd be a lot more convinced of the "incidental" nature of it, if only one set of digits had changed, not 2. the user didn't suddenly move from montreal to toronto (as ip-locations would seem to indicate).

but the real problem is the first one; this is a user, who jumps among anonymous-ip addresses, making it impossible to keep track of their work, or to block them (if needed). this person is an EXPERIENCED EDITOR who wants to edit without taking any responsibility for their actions or mistakes. that strongly suggests that they are either sockpuppeting, or circumventing a block/ban.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You said "& you REALLY think that this person turned up ONE MONTH AGO, with a magical knowledge of how things work on wp/en AND commons?"

You're putting words into my mouth. I said that I didn't think the IP address change was- in itself- an attempt to hide their identity. That's as far as what I said goes. Ubcule (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please pay attention Ellin Beltz, Ubcule and IP User 67.230.140.124. These images were PERSONALLY shot by me and uploaded onto Commons by me almost 2 years ago. During those two years, no one ever nominated them for deletion (except for me personally nominating a couple of duplicate images I had inadvertently uploaded). Thus, the commentary in the DR that these are "selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts" is clearly untrue. Also, given the fact that all of the requests to delete the subject's pics were made by a single Anon. IP whose only contribution to all of Wiki related just to this subject), struck me as highly suspicious.

However, I do apologize for my comment above that Ellin Beltz and the Anon. IP were one and the same. Unfortunately, when I had clicked on the Anon. IP it took me to Ellin Beltz's talk page and I concluded they were one and the same because Ms. Beltz was supporting all of their DRs using the exact same reasoning and language put forth by that user, when it was obviously untrue. Yes, Ubcule is correct that Celeblawyers pics were nominated for deletion by him, which I overlooked as I was focusing on the pics I had uploaded. However, upon looking at the Celeblawyers deletions closer, those pics too had been uploaded a long time ago and had never been nominated for deletion prior to Ubcule's DR in Oct. 2013. Moreover, those pics were clearly different pics from the ones I had uploaded. Thus, the statement that the pics ownership is disputable because the same pictures have been uploaded by multiple accounts is also incorrect. To summarize, let me restate that, contrary to the allegations that "these are selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts", in fact, these pics were (1) uploaded by me personally two yrs ago; (2) were NEVER nominated for deletion by any one (except myself) prior to Nov. 10th, 2013 when the Anon. IP made their first batch of DRs; (3) they were shot by me PERSONALLY ; (4) their ownership is NOT in dispute; and (5) they were never uploaded by any other account. Lmatt123 (talk) 3:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(Note; above comment was made at 20:59 on 23 Nov, not at 03:59 on 23 Nov as signature claims(?!)) Ubcule (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

actually, that's a good point; could we please get some objective 3rd party opinion on whether these are the same photos or not? & a clear UPLOAD DATE comparison? Lx 121 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

LMatt123, I personally never claimed the photos in the current nomination(s) were the same as the ones I nominated. Matter of fact, I wasn't convinced that they were.

That said, the ones I nominated (and which were deleted) were nominated because they were out of scope- that was all there was to it. They should still be visible to admins, AFAIK.

The fact they'd been around a while and not deleted likely had more to do with the fact that they were languishing out of sight as uncategorised. Generally uncategorised images have a *much* higher chance of being out-of-scope images, and I'd been sorting through them. I'd be less likely to touch new uploads, since those may still be categorised by the uploaders and/or may be intended for permitted personal purposes. After several months, neither of these were likely to apply. Ubcule (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Looks like consensus is in favor of deleting this image as being out of scope FASTILY 22:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Donnie Wahlberg and Maryse Selit.jpg

unused, out of scope, repost of deleted page: see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donnie_Wahlberg_and_Maryse_Selit.jpg Holyoke, mass (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Speedy delete This image is a crop from the image of the same name that was deleted previously. This image was, therefore, uploaded out of process, breaking Commons rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)